English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article applies various ethical frameworks to inform decision making about investment in two specific goods-strengthening public health and stabilizing the global climate. I begin by outlining how these goods traditionally competed for common and constrained resources. I then discuss how this view of competition has been rendered more problematic by emerging and compelling ethical justifications for investment in both goods based on utilitarian, Rawlsian, and communitarian analyses. I conclude by showing that these goods no longer compete head-to-head in a zero-sum way. Changes in science, technology, and society mean that investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods-that is, the goods have become synergistic. As a result, the case for investing in both is better.

The “Buy One, Get One Free” Ethics of Investing Public and Philanthropic Funds in Health and Climate